Were Jesus and the Baptist 'left wing' or 'right wing' ?

[eider]

I think that Jesus was definitely set against excessive wealth and unreasonable poverty.

This thread seeks to show what he said and did.

But to start off:-

Matthew {19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Please make mention of What Jesus or the Baptist said and did........ only.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think that Jesus was definitely set against excessive wealth and unreasonable poverty.

This thread seeks to show what he said and did.

But to start off:-

Matthew {19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Please make mention of What Jesus or the Baptist said and did........ only.

Given your caveat the replies might be rather interesting!.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given your caveat the replies might be rather interesting!.

Just to [as it were] start the ball rolling and given the nationality of many contributors; this section from a longer article is [perhaps] of some relevance..

https://www.politico.eu/article/jesu...gion-politics/

Whether one believes Jesus was on the right or the left generally depends on where one stands on the political spectrum. A recent study in the U.S. found that, when it comes to politics, man creates God in his own image rather than the other way around.

Researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues. Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas Christian Democrats believed He would have had far more liberal opinions, prioritizing charity toward migrants over, say, opposition to abortion.

[rogue06]

I think that Jesus was definitely set against excessive wealth and unreasonable poverty.

This thread seeks to show what he said and did.

But to start off:-

Matthew {19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Please make mention of What Jesus or the Baptist said and did........ only.

Don't really care about what "the Baptist" may or may not believed (not really enough to base anything on any way).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Don't really care about what "the Baptist" may or may not believed (not really enough to base anything on any way).

Of course the other option open to you was to ignore this thread!

[Diogenes]

I think that Jesus was definitely set against excessive wealth and unreasonable poverty.

This thread seeks to show what he said and did.

But to start off:-

Matthew {19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Please make mention of What Jesus or the Baptist said and did........ only.

If you look at the passage, the condemnation is on greed, not material wealth itself, much like when Jesus said one could not serve both God and Mammon. If the man was not greedy, he would have no issue selling his possessions when Jesus' instructed him to do so. The idea that the man in question kept all the commandments is hyperbolic.

I take it then you're against divorce except in limited cases since it's limited in the same passage.

[rogue06]

Of course the other option open to you was to ignore this thread!

Or to focus on the only one mentioned who's views were important.

Jesus definitely instructed His followers to take care of the poor, but charity is not Socialism. Early Christians were a group of people helping each other out, a family not a government. And nobody was forced to give anything. They shared it.

It was how they took care of themselves and each other -- a very small group that in effect was an extended family. Nowhere is it even suggested that this was supposed to be a blueprint for how a nation or government should do things.

The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed His followers to take care of the poor. He never said anything about getting the government to force others to do so -- which is what Socialism does.

In His parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) Jesus has the main character giving according to their ability not according to their need. And note how he took back what he gave the servant who buried the money and did nothing with it rather than used it to increase the owners wealth and gave it to the servant who had increased his wealth ten-fold.

Often the parable concerning the Good Samaritan is put forth as evidence that Jesus supported Socialism. But the Good Samaritan took it upon himself to help out. What he didn't do is walk off and contact any government officials and told them to do it instead. And he didn't expect the innkeeper to assume the cost of caring for the injured man but instead paid it out of his (the Samaritan's) own pocket.

Again, Jesus taught that it is a personal responsibility to care for those in need. Please note that Jesus never told anyone that instead of helping others in need themselves they should get the Pharisees, scribes or even Roman officials to do it for you. It is your responsibility.

And let's be blunt, Socialism is not about sharing but rather seizing someone's property by force or threat of force (if you don't voluntarily hand it over) and giving it away including to those who do nothing but hold out their hand and then demand more. And keep in mind that the Bible does not condone in any way shape or form someone demanding money from others. Instead it explicitly teaches that we should not covet what others have (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21)

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's

Socialism teaches that we should look at what other people have, crave it and then decide on what should be taken away from them so that we can have it.

Finally, "common ownership" didn't mean everything was shared. As Acts 12:12; 16:40; Romans 16:3-5; Colossians 4:15 makes clear some Christians (including John Mark -- the first reference) still owned property and their own homes, allowing them to be used upon occasion as meeting places for the church.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Or to focus on the only one mentioned who's views were important.

Jesus definitely instructed His followers to take care of the poor, but charity is not Socialism. Early Christians were a group of people helping each other out, a family not a government. And nobody was forced to give anything. They shared it.

That did not last long given how quickly, once the religion gained toleration and temporal power, its various leading prelates rapidly acquired great personal wealth and land [all tax free]. John Chrysostom was quite outspoken about that.

Furthermore, the information we have about John is only found in the later Christian gospels, which serve Christian interests. Therefore, can we consider that information reliable?

The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed His followers to take care of the poor. He never said anything about getting the government to force others to do so -- which is what Socialism does.

And who do you imagine in a deocracy provides the finances for a government to utilise modern socialist ideas?

There are also Christian Socialists. Or is their theology [as tabibito noted on another thread about Rev James Martin s j;

more than a bit suspect.

You can cherry pick comments from the gospels that are into the mouth of Jesus as much as you like, and offer your own interpretation of those comments, although I note you did not include Matthew chapter 25 verses 34-46.

However, given various remarks I have read over the last [nearly three years] on these boards by those who claim to have faith, I often wonder if their view of Jesus is more on the "supply-side".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you look at the passage, the condemnation is on greed, not material wealth itself,

Is it?

The idea that the man in question kept all the commandments is hyperbolic.

Is it?

You offer interpretations of these texts that would not be amiss were they made by a believer.

I am waiting for you to change your "denomination" you cannot be far off!

[rogue06]

That did not last long given how quickly, once the religion gained toleration and temporal power, its various leading prelates rapidly acquired great personal wealth and land [all tax free]. John Chrysostom was quite outspoken about that.

Furthermore, the information we have about John is only found in the later Christian gospels, which serve Christian interests. Therefore, can we consider that information reliable?

And who do you imagine in a deocracy provides the finances for a government to utilise modern socialist ideas?

There are also Christian Socialists. Or is their theology [as tabibito noted on another thread about Rev James Martin s j;

more than a bit suspect.

You can cherry pick comments from the gospels that are into the mouth of Jesus as much as you like, and offer your own interpretation of those comments, although I note you did not include Matthew chapter 25 verses 34-46.

However, given various remarks I have read over the last [nearly three years] on these boards by those who claim to have faith, I often wonder if their view of Jesus is more on the "supply-side".

Eider specifically asked that we limit it to just what Jesus and John the Baptist said.

It's not that you missed that part given your response to the OP:

Given your caveat the replies might be rather interesting!.

Which you turned around and promptly ignored.

As for not including Matthew 25:34-46, that was directly covered when I repeatedly wrote things like

Jesus definitely instructed His followers to take care of the poor, but charity is not Socialism

and

The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus instructed His followers to take care of the poor. He never said anything about getting the government to force others to do so -- which is what Socialism does.

So naturally, just like you did with the request in the OP, you ignored it.

[rogue06]

If you look at the passage, the condemnation is on greed, not material wealth itself, much like when Jesus said one could not serve both God and Mammon. If the man was not greedy, he would have no issue selling his possessions when Jesus' instructed him to do so. The idea that the man in question kept all the commandments is hyperbolic.

I take it then you're against divorce except in limited cases since it's limited in the same passage.

There is also the issue that for the most part those who were really rich back then tended to become so by heavily exploiting others whereas today many of the richest people in the world (folks like Bill Gates and Elon Musk) did so by offering something that the people wanted -- either through innovation or building a better mouse trap.

[Diogenes]

Is it?

You seem to have left off:

If the man was not greedy, he would have no issue selling his possessions when Jesus' instructed him to do so.

It's not impossible for the rich to be saved:

²⁵ When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ ²⁶ But Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.’

This is right after the commentary about the rich man's camel. Job was exceedingly wealthy and God doubled Job's wealth after Job's suffering. In Matthew 6, Jesus states:

²⁴ ‘No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.^[i]

μαμμωνᾶς mammōnās, mam-mo-nas'; of Chaldee origin (confidence, i.e. wealth, personified); mammonas, i.e. avarice (deified):—mammon.

Wealth itself is not the problem, the problem is greed to the point it detracts from and competes with God as an idol.

Is it?

Given that there are 613 commandments to keep and stating that you have kept all the commandments (or even the few listed) would be hyperbolic with

¹⁹ Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

being the more difficult two to affirm that one had kept since their youth.

You offer interpretations of these texts that would not be amiss were they made by a believer.

I am waiting for you to change your "denomination" you cannot be far off!

Or that I'm actually careful in my interpretation of the text.


Verses cited are NRSVA

[KingsGambit]

Neither spent a lot of time talking about government action so much as personal action. John the Baptist addressed corrupt tax collectors and told them to act ethically (though not prohibiting them from acting at all), and the gist of Jesus' interaction with Zacchaeus is similar. So the instruction was to follow the rules and act fairly, but we can't deduce much more specifically from there about leanings.

Left and right wing are very anachronistic to the Bible and step from the 18th century, so it doesn't make sense to import these categories back almost 1800 years into a much different culture.

On a side note, I'd agree with Craig Blomberg that even today, extremes of wealth and poverty are both unacceptable.

[eider]

Just to [as it were] start the ball rolling and given the nationality of many contributors; this section from a longer article is [perhaps] of some relevance..

https://www.politico.eu/article/jesu...gion-politics/

Whether one believes Jesus was on the right or the left generally depends on where one stands on the political spectrum. A recent study in the U.S. found that, when it comes to politics, man creates God in his own image rather than the other way around.

Researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues. Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas Christian Democrats believed He would have had far more liberal opinions, prioritizing charity toward migrants over, say, opposition to abortion.

I expected to see something like that. A Christian member here on some other thread wrote that Jesus would have had an AR-15 if available.....

[eider]

Don't really care about what "the Baptist" may or may not believed (not really enough to base anything on any way).

But you cannot think of anything that Jesus said or did either....ok.